Also, I don't like the name-calling, either. I feel as though there are several "prominent" members on here who are incredibly condescending and back-handed and when there is an opinion posted that they don't agree with, they jump right in and have to knock whats being said. "Wit", it's been called, recently. I'm sorry - but I don't see anything witty about putting people down, no matter how eloquently you happen to do so. There are people on here from all walks of life, all kinds of experiences and backgrounds and lately that is not being embraced, it's being put down due to a few certain members having their nose in the air and walking around like they can just say anything they want to anyone.

Because you were one of the people who were extremely rude (to me, Blade and some others you apparently don't want to mention) in a different thread. I honestly don't know what I've done to you, but you seem to have some issues. It's funny that you say that there are people from all kinds of backgrounds and it's not being embraced. To me it feels like you (and some others) are the ones who aren't embracing it.

It's amusing how much I irritate you. You do know that ad hominem attacks are technically fallacious, right? They serve to make you look illogical and petty, and cast a pall over anything you say. As one of the more blunt, plainspoken, occasionally hostile members on this site, who has been told repeatedly in multiple threads that her feedback is unjustifiedly harsh, it is a little... interesting... that you feel so very passionately about tempering ones rhetoric.

As an aside, I think one should be able to actually back up any objective claim one makes. It doesn't mean laying out an exhaustive bibliography each time you discuss a more objective topic, but if you're wading into controversial waters and you want to make sure the message is heard loud and clear, not muddled by however people feel towards the messenger, be able to cite sources.

This comes up in two main arenas, I think: socio-political topics and any medical stuff that ventures into culture wars territory. I feel very, very strongly that there is a great deal of literally dangerous misinformation in certain domains of obstetric practice and infant health, but (ad hominem again!) simply stating the counterfactual without providing real, objective, easy to understand proof doesn't accomplish anything if people think you're just mouthing some tired, discredited party line. Being able to dissect and (in)validate opposing sources is necessary, too, in weighing the evidence. I don't think these are pissing matches but rather very high-stakes topics where, for example, babies' lives are literally at stake.

In the sociopolitical arena, there are subjective and objective statements. Saying "such and such is offensive" is nearly impossible to invalidate, but factual claims ("one billion Indians died during the British Raj") can and should be verified if people care and ask.

One a personal note: I don't like lying and liars and wasting time, and will continue to try to nip time wasters in the bud. I think nameberry is much more pleasant in their absence.

And if anyone opens hostilities towards me, I am not a gentle 'turn the other cheek' person and absolutely will give as good-- probably better-- as I get.

I'm not even going to grace this with an answer, but if it's what helps you sleep at night.

Because you were one of the people who were extremely rude (to me, Blade and some others you apparently don't want to mention) in a different thread. I honestly don't know what I've done to you, but you seem to have some issues. It's funny that you say that there are people from all kinds of backgrounds and it's not being embraced. To me it feels like you (and some others) are the ones who aren't embracing it.

I agree, and I'm sorry, hun.

I was not extremely rude and when I DID realize that I had inaccurately accused someone of something I admitted to it, both in Blade's thread and the other one.

That being said - I don't take nameberry as seriously as some of you seem to, so going back and forth with you on here over who said what to who and whose apparently better at fighting via the interwebs is not how I plan to spend the rest of my week off - the only reason I even posted in this thread was because something that I specifically wrote was addressed in the OP, otherwise, I just do not care. I had extra time this week and decided to go into the momberry section seeing as I hadn't really been in there before - oops, my mistake. Guess I'll be reigning in my interest on this site back to strictly names.

Well, happily it appears there will be no Gunfight at the OK Corral, which is good for all involved.

Just so we're clear, I don't think there should be any "Team X" or "Team Y." Ideas are what should be/are being discussed, not the people who originate them. Both about onomastics and anything else people want to discuss.

As always, my advice/opinions-- just like every other member's-- are, at the end of the day, worth what you paid for them.